3. Background Goals of Revised Program Make meaningful distinctions with r ewards linked to performance ratings Model GS plan after the SES performance plan Identify meaningful performance distinctions Link individual objectives to Agency, Program, and Project objectives Consider customer and employee perspective
4.
5.
6. Strategic Management and Governance Handbook (NPD 1000.0) Goal 3: Develop a balanced overall program of science, exploration, and aeronautics consistent with the redirection of the human space flight program to focus on exploration: 3.1 Study earth from space to advance scientific understanding and meet societal needs; 3.2 Understand the sun and its effects on earth and the solar system; 3.3 Advance scientific knowledge of the solar system, search for evidence of life, and prepare for human exploration; 3.4 Discover the origin, structure, evolution, and destiny of the universe, and search for Earth-like planets. Goal 6: Establish a lunar return program having the maximum possible utility for later missions to Mars and other destinations.
7.
8.
9. Element Rating Definitions SIGNIFICANTLY EXCEEDS Performance that consistently exceeds the performance standards to an exceptional degree for the element. EXCEEDS Performance that consistently exceeds the performance standards to a high degree for the element. MEETS Performance that fully and consistently meets the performance standards identified for the element. NEEDS IMPROVEMENT Performance that does not fully meet the performance standards for the element. FAILS TO MEET Performance that fails to meet the established performance standards for the element.
10.
11. Summary Rating Definitions DISTINGUISHED Performance when all elements are rated Significantly Exceeds. ACCOMPLISHED Performance when all elements are rated no lower than Exceeds Expectations. FULLY SUCCESFUL Performance when no element is rated below Meets Expectations. NEEDS IMPROVEMENT Performance when any element is rated below Meets and no critical element is rated Fails to Meet. UNACCEPTABLE Performance when any critical element is rated Fails to Meet Expectations.
12. SUPERVISORY APPRAISAL When appraising a supervisor’s performance, the rating official must seek and consider employees’ and customers’ perspectives.
13.
14. Current vs. New New Current Program Component Agency policy emphasizes the OPM regulatory requirement. OPM prohibits use of quotas Rating distributions Organizational-level process for review of program goal achievement prior to rating GS performance. Informal Organizational Performance Review
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20. Key Events May 2007 New Performance Plan Form availability April and May (2 sessions) “ Maximizing Performance through Coaching” Training (for supervisors) April 13 Online EPCS training ( required for supervisors) May – June “ Developing Performance Elements and Standards” Training (for supervisors) March – until obligation has been fulfilled. Negotiation with Unions August 1, 2007 Performance plans are signed and issued for the 2007-2008 Appraisal Cycle May-June Briefing and Question & Answer Sessions (All) Timeframes Event
![Background ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object]]()